Venting re" Full Frame

So, as many hear may have noticed, I switched from my Canon 5D mk II to Pentax K-5 last year.  Overall, I am pleased with the change for all things natural light.

But, I find that in studio, I really, really miss not having a full frame outfit.  Both from a resolution standpoint for beauty work (which is a small gripe), but most of all, none of the APS=C lens combos give me the right mix of 50-85mm magnification/angle of view.  I have the 43mm ltd and the 60-250mm for studio work, and neither is really the right workflow for me.  The 43 is slightly too short for serious beauty headshots, and the 60 is too long for my studio sometimes depending on how much of the model's figure needs to be included in the frame...

If only they would get something full frame on the table for the roadmap.  I don't plan to sell anything or completely leave pentax, but I think I might need to save up and get another FF rig for studio work again.  I just want FF and a solid 50MM lens combo in the end.

Does that make sense at all?

It appears to me that the DA*50-135 f2.8 would be a perfect lens for your studio needs. Optically it is near perfect and has very smooth/nice bokeh. And it covers your FL range needs. Would be much cheaper than purchasing a FF system.
Best regards,
Daryl

Hi Mike,

I see where you're coming from in a way, but are you sure the only solution is full frame? What confuses me a little is that 43mm could be too short, the 60mm too long on APS-C, but then on the other hand 50mm on FF would do the trick.

Given that 'foot zooming' doesn't appear to be a solution, it sounds like one of the few 17-70mm zooms might be the answer you're looking for. Posts regarding a Pentax FF go back a while, if you're not happy perhaps you could look into one of the Pentax/Tamron/Sigma flavours to cover the exact focal length you want.

(Edit: Or what DarylK said!)

--
Beauty and folly are old companions.

I had that lens, and upgraded to the 60-250 beause I needed the tripod collar as an option when using a ringflash, and wanted the long reach for nature.  No zoom really is my ideal in a studio for my style, I prefer primes, but the 60-250 is the way to go when using a ringflash for me.

I guess you just have to experience the difference firsthand to understand how FF changes the nature of lenses and perspective. Sure, I can do anything I need on APS-C and the lenses I have, and most people probably don't notice any difference in my end product. but to me, the workflow in studio and the final result do feel different.

Maybe you could take a look on the DA* 55mm f1,4 . It earned some good reviews and is rated on photozone as a good performer regarding bokeh.

Quote from photozone

"is equivalent to about 85mm whereas the depth-of-field capability resembles a f/2 lens"

"There's a bit of an outlining effect in out-of-focus highlights at f/1.4 but highlight discs are pretty perfect at f/2 and f/2.8. The blur quality is also very high..."

Well, I do use a full frame Pentax myself from time to time. Obviously though not quite the kind you're hoping for. Perhaps part of your problem is just that you were just so well used to doing things one way that a stubborn part of the brain is refusing to let the new way 'feel right'.

I've no doubt as you say that the present results are just as good as before, and that's what really counts at the end of the day.

--
Beauty and folly are old companions.

LOL, I have a K1000 as well, just not really my thing to use in studio.  Maybe I should give that a whirl.  I even have an old 50 F2 on it I think.

I did have another funny idea just now. First of all, I understand that due to space considerations, there may be one exactly perfect focal length/sensor size combo for you, hence the need to vent.

On the other hand, you probably live in a highly advertising rich environment, just like pretty much everyone here. Are you sure this discomfort you're getting is not just the simple need to blow a bit of cash? You could always test my theory with the purchase of a shiny new 6D with a nifty fifty, just y'know, in the interest of physiological sciences

--
Beauty and folly are old companions.

Nah, no need to blow cash.  Just realizing my workflow is different, and the "feel" of the studio work is different because of that.  I use all sorts of things in studio, from my Fuji X100 and its 23mm/35 equiv focal length, to the K-5 and lenses, to a Fuji X-Pro1 and 35/60mm lens combos.  Just depends on what I want to try.

But even with all those options a FF and 50 is a great tool for studio use.

Not really it seems you hadn't adopted a APS-c mind set and are still thinking in FF terms.

The lens you are using leave a big hole in the portrait/studio traditional focal range (50-60 aps-C 75-90 35mm) so it not surprising your frustrated.

As to ring flashes and zoom mounts I'd have thought a studio ringflash like the Elinchrom Ringflash 3000 woudl be self standing like this

My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

Yes, I have a mount like that, which is fine if you are shooting landscape orientation, but a tripod collar is needed for portrait without needing major extra mounting on that thing.

Hi Mike,

The Tamron 28-75  F2.8 is a very sharp lens and it's not so expensive,just a thought.

--
Dave's clichés

That is the lens I was going to recommend. I only shot it once, but I liked it. I also like the Voigtlander 58mm, but manual focus isn't for everyone...

There's something else to consider. The 60-250mm isn't actually a 60-250mm. Camera makers typically round a lot in their specs. A lens that's a 62-245mm can legally be labeled a 60-250mm. A 55mm prime is going to actually be 55mm. and the difference between that and the 62-63mm you don't like is substantial.

Oh, and that rounding thing also affects 50mm f1.4 lenses: I've measured Nikon and Pentax ones at 52mm. Almost all lenses are off in the "easy" direction. It's easier to make a 52mm f1.4 than a 50mm. It's easier to make a 22mm than a 20mm. Easier to make a 280mm than a 300mm.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

L-Bracket?

DA*55 (already mentioned)?

F/FA 50 / 1.4?

F/FA 50 / 1.7?

DA 50 / 1.8?

DFA 50 /2.8 macro?

Sigma 50 / 1.4?

Even the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and Tamron 17-50/2.8 could be used.

Lots of manual options, especially the Zeiss T* 50 / 2 macro.

Just generally I couldnt think of any focal length other than the 50 you are asking for which has dozens of lens options available.

But a 50 on a crop sensor does not act the same and give you the same field as a 50mm on full frame.  I thought with the 43mm and 60mm I could be above and below and have them cover similar ideas as a 50 or 85 prime combo.  just slapping a 50mm on a crop doesn't solve the problem that it does not give me the same field of view as a 50 n FF.

How about a 35mm? That is the closest to a 50mm FF equiv

--
It's not about the tool, its how you use it

A 35mm will give you a 52mm equivalent. The 50mm you're used to on FF is really more like 52mm, so a 35mm is perfect

The 55mm is an 84mm equivalent.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

Pentax 35mm f2.8 macro LTD?
Pentax 35mm f2 or the newer f2.4
samyang 35mm f1.4
Sigma art 35mm f1.4 (getting great reviews) 
All would give you equivalent to 50mm FF. 
Or how about some of the 24-60 or similar type zooms?
 I haven't used the 60-250f4 but the 50-135 is a stellar lens and I don't see why the lack of a tripod collar would stop you using it with a ring flash when you can get L bracket's for the camera body.
The sigma 50mm 1.4 is apparently more like a 43mm or so.. that could be good?
I had a FF camera for a while and the only difference I noticed really was more DoF.. the perspective of the image is controlled by distance and using an equivalent lens gives you the same image.
As for image quality, I found my k5 to be better than the 12mp FF nikon sensor, and while it loses out in resolution to the 5dmark2 it has much better dynamic range.

100% agree about dynamic range of the K5 versus canon.  But I think i am talking in circles about equivalent field of view.

Yes, a 35mm on APS will "act" like a 50mm on FF, but it is not the same optical character as a 50mm magnification.  Its not just a depth of field change either.  For portrait work the way a lens on a specific sensor renders the features does change and look different, and a 35mm lens on an APS does not give the same look as a 50mm on a FF from the perspsective.  it just doesn't do it.  While a 43mm comes close to magnification of a 50mm, the field of view is not as desirable because you lose so much on an APS... Well I think I know my answer, just wish Pentax would give us a FF to use all their awesome lens and sensor technologies on...